Review of Quiring, Bjorn. 2014. Shakespeare's Curse. The Aporias of Ritual Exclusion in Early Modern Royal Drama. London / New York, NY: Routledge. 266 pages. ISBN: 978-0- 415-51756-0.The book by Bjorn Quiring, Shakespeare's Curse. The Aporias of Ritual Exclusion in Early Modern Royal Drama, sets itself within the by-now flourishing critical production on Shakespeare and the law. It starts by trying to define and circumscribe the several meanings of 'curse', a term that basically indicates a reaction to a transgression. Dating back to the Bible, the curse indicated either an act of punishment by God or an appeal to God's justice. It implies a juridical order which has in some way been violated and which must be restored through the curse. In this perspective, the curse has a transcendental value: it is established as strictly connected to law, which it presupposes and determines at the same time.As the avenger, the curser appears to act in God's name: he acts as God's mouthpiece to reaffirm the law but, at the same time, he becomes blemished by the utterance. The curser shows his power in the utterance but is endangered by it: power and impotence are mixed in the act of cursing because the curse follows a ritual, but it also marks a state of exception. Therefore, the curse is an ambiguous act that is an exception on the one hand, but is ritualized on the other hand, thus becoming a political act. Correctly, Quiring asserts that the curse can be set as a borderline: it is an individual act that operates onto a body politic.I agree with Quiring's connecting the curse to Schmitt's idea of the "state of exception" (1985; see also Agamben 2008) because it stems from a disruption of the law and aims at reinstituting the law itself. If equity acts as a supplement of the law, in the same way the curse represents the inside/outside of the law, because it codifies a transgression as a transgression, thus re-inscribing it into the legal system.These remarks can be connected to the theories concerning 'revenge' that come to the forefront in Elizabethan revenge plays. The revenger acts as God's arm, as he recreates the law that has somehow been violated by a murder, so the revenger must be considered as part of the juridical system. Microcosm and macrocosm can be reunited by the restoration of cosmic harmony through the punishment of the culprit. However, the revenger falls back into the sin of murder: he once again commits a crime, which blemishes his conscience. This is one of Hamlet's many doubts that prevent him from acting out the ghost's requests till the very last moment. This marks the liminal situation of the Elizabethan age, stressed by Quiring himself in the course of the volume. The age sets itself between two historical epochs and two juridical systems: the medieval one, which accepts private revenge, the revenge that marks the protection of one's family or clan; and the modern one, where justice is left in the hands of political authority. A patent example is Romeo and Juliet, where Romeo does not want to revenge Mercutio so as not to trigger a family feud, while Mercutio expects Romeo to revenge the insult to his family. The Prince in the text feels his authority baffled by this juridical 'mutiny' that is committed by his citizens, who do not respect political authority.The curse falls into a similar paradigm: the person who curses violates the Christological commandment to pardon offences or crimes, and to leave punishment in the hands of God (the supreme authority who should punish the culprit). Hence, from a transcendental perspective, the curser is blemished; but from a worldly perspective the curser helps carry out punishment, thus contributing to worldly justice. Quiring speaks of the paradoxical nature of the curse.What is particularly interesting is Quiring's connection of the curse to Schmitt's (1985) and Agamben's (2008) state of exception, but the curse can also be an instrument of power in the hands of authority. …

中文翻译：

---

回顾Quiring，比约恩。2014。莎士比亚的诅咒。早期近代皇家戏剧中的仪式排斥性失语症。伦敦/纽约，纽约：Routledge。266页。ISBN：978–0– 415–51756–0

回顾Quiring，比约恩。2014。莎士比亚的诅咒。早期近代皇家戏剧中的仪式排斥性失语症。伦敦/纽约，纽约：Routledge。266页。国际标准书号（ISBN）：978-0- 415-51756-0。这本书是莎士比亚的诅咒，由比约恩·奎林（Bjorn Quiring）撰写。早期现代皇家戏剧中的仪式排斥性阿波里娅使自己处于莎士比亚和法律日益繁荣的批判作品之内。它首先尝试定义和限制“诅咒”的几种含义，“诅咒”这个术语基本上表示对犯罪的反应。该诅咒的历史可以追溯到圣经，它表明要么是上帝的惩罚行为，要么是呼吁上帝的正义。它暗示着一种司法秩序，它在某种程度上受到违反，必须通过诅咒予以恢复。从这个角度来看，诅咒具有超越性的价值：作为复仇者，诅咒者似乎以上帝的名义行事：他是上帝的喉舌，重申法律，但与此同时，他成为了复仇者。话语使自己变得模糊不清。诅咒者在话语中显示了他的力量，但是却受到其威胁：在诅咒行为中，力量和阳imp混合在一起，因为诅咒遵循一种仪式，但它也标志着一种例外状态。因此，诅咒是一种模棱两可的行为，一方面是一种例外，另一方面却被仪式化，从而成为一种政治行为。正确的是，奎林断言可以将诅咒定为边界：这是对政治团体进行的个人行为。我同意奎林将诅咒与施密特的“例外状态”观念联系起来的观点。（1985年；另见Agamben，2008年），因为它源于对法律的破坏，旨在重新建立法律本身。如果平等是法律的补充，则诅咒以同样的方式代表法律的内部/外部，因为它将犯罪行为编纂为犯罪行为，从而将其重新写入法律体系。在伊丽莎白时代的复仇剧中，有关“复仇”的理论排在最前列。复仇者充当上帝的手臂，因为他重创了被谋杀所违反的法律，因此复仇者必须被视为司法系统的一部分。微观世界和宏观世界可以通过对罪魁祸首的惩罚而恢复宇宙和谐而重新团聚。但是，复仇者陷入了谋杀罪：他再次犯了罪，弄污了他的良心。这是哈姆雷特（Hamlet）的许多疑问之一，使他无法履行鬼魂的要求直到最后一刻。这标志着伊丽莎白时代的临危境地，在书卷的写作过程中Quiring自己强调了这一点。年龄介于两个历史纪元和两个司法制度之间：中世纪，接受私人报仇，这标志着对家人或家族的保护。而现代的则是将正义留在政治权威的手中。例如，罗密欧与朱丽叶（Romeo and Juliet），罗密欧（Romeo）不想为报复默尔库蒂奥（Mercutio），以免引发家庭仇恨，而默科蒂奥（Mercutio）希望罗密欧报仇对他家人的侮辱。案文中的王子感到自己的权威被他的公民所犯下的这种司法“'变”所困扰，诅咒也属于类似的范式：诅咒者违反了基督教的诫命，赦免了罪行或罪行，并把惩罚交在了上帝的手中（应由最高机构来惩罚罪魁祸首）。因此，从先验的角度来看，诅咒者是有缺陷的。但是从世俗的角度来看，诅咒者有助于进行惩罚，从而有助于世俗的正义。Quiring谈到了诅咒的悖论性质，尤其有趣的是Quiring将诅咒与Schmitt（1985）和Agamben（2008）的例外状态联系起来，但该诅咒也可以成为权力掌握的工具。… 受诅咒的人违反了基督教的诫命，赦免了罪行或罪行，将惩罚交在上帝的手中（应由最高机构对罪犯进行惩罚）。因此，从先验的角度来看，诅咒者是有缺陷的。但是从世俗的角度来看，诅咒者有助于进行惩罚，从而有助于世俗的正义。Quiring谈到了诅咒的悖论性质，尤其有趣的是Quiring将诅咒与Schmitt（1985）和Agamben（2008）的例外状态联系起来，但该诅咒也可以成为权力掌握的工具。… 受诅咒的人违反了基督教的诫命，赦免了罪行或罪行，将惩罚交在上帝的手中（应由最高机构对罪犯进行惩罚）。因此，从先验的角度来看，诅咒者是有缺陷的。但是从世俗的角度来看，诅咒者有助于进行惩罚，从而有助于世俗的正义。Quiring谈到了诅咒的悖论性质，尤其有趣的是Quiring将诅咒与Schmitt（1985）和Agamben（2008）的例外状态联系起来，但该诅咒也可以成为权力掌握的工具。… 但是从世俗的角度来看，诅咒者有助于进行惩罚，从而有助于世俗的正义。Quiring谈到了诅咒的悖论性质，尤其有趣的是Quiring将诅咒与Schmitt（1985）和Agamben（2008）的例外状态联系起来，但该诅咒也可以成为权力掌握的工具。… 但是从世俗的角度来看，诅咒者有助于进行惩罚，从而有助于世俗的正义。Quiring谈到了诅咒的悖论性质，尤其有趣的是Quiring将诅咒与Schmitt（1985）和Agamben（2008）的例外状态联系起来，但该诅咒也可以成为权力掌握的工具。…